talkpolitics | Rendering unto Caesar: Liberal anti-Communism and rabid anti-communism

During a sojourn behind the Iron Curtain before the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was surprised to see how similar East Germany was to the US. Why was this the case? Was it because the US was under Communist domination, or was it because the USSR was just another Capitalist overlord? An ignorant American would favor the former conclusion, while a scholar might tend to support the latter notion. In any case it is clear that Communism was a far cry from communism, just as Republicanism is anything but republicanism.

A Mormon John Bircher who has recently been brought forward as the intellectual puppet master behind the moronic Glenn Beck, W. Cleon Skousen, gives us a key to the capitalist lurking behind the facade of human progress. In his fascinating analysis of Communism, The Naked Communist, Skousen lists some of the agenda items to destroy America. Number 38 on the list is interesting:

Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

Thomas Szasz remarked that American psychiatrists criticized Soviet psychiatrists for hospitalizing political dissidents while doing the same thing themselves. Szasz has thoroughly debunked the psychiatric profession as a pseudo-science just as left intellectuals have debunked the priestly aspects of Marxism-Leninism. This agenda item in favor of psychiatry also explains why a Leninist I met defended the profession.

Skousen makes some very good arguments for how Soviet Communism betrayed the original goal of human progress. It quickly degenerated into Czarism by another name. What he failed to see was how American Republicanism is British Imperialism by another name. Skousen belongs to Caesar because he sees himself as free despite the bondage of his deliberate ignorance. As he appears to promote popular sovereignty, his students favor despotism of the most vicious breed. Skousen was a liberal anti-Communist, but he was fodder for rabid anti-communism. The latter can be held responsible for much of what is wrong with America today because of its tendency to turn America into a thug nation.

How do you distinguish between ideas such as communism and republicanism vs. their supposed manifestations in the forms of Communism and Republicanism?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Many would argue that the Soviets and thier sattelites were not "true communists" and the the US is not "true capitalists". With out a clear definitions for the above terms the only thing that your post demonstrates is a woeful naivety on your part.

"Oh look! East germans live in houses and use electricity, they're just like us!"

The Berlin Wall was built for a reason.

Slavoj Zizek makes a really great point in this video, in reply to a "pure capitalism" guy who, like many laissez-faire capitalists, argues that the system failed because it was not pure enough. Zizek turns his argument around on him - noting that in Slovenia, where Zizek grew up, there were communists who would say the same thing - "the system failed because it wasn't pure communism." His argument on this topic, I think, makes it very clear that the system will never be "pure enough" and will always push people in a direction that can lead to greed and dangerous

http://streamingdocumentary.com/2011/03/05/slavoj-zizekliving-times-streaming/

start watching at around minute 3 and watch till about minute 5

So what you're saying is that people will act like people regardless of the "_____ism" involved?

Wierd. ;)

i'm saying that some people--the fundamentalists--will never accept a flaw in their own system.

smart people accept the flaws in their system and are willing to do their damndest to overcome those flaws--maybe even change systems, if the case demand it

This is my big gripe with so-called "identity-politics". The more the two become entwined the more likely someone is to interperet a political disagreement as a personal attack. I can think of a few regular contributers for whom this seems to be thier standard MO.

i'm not sure what you meant by what you just said.

what does "the more the two become entwined" mean? the more what two become entwined?

and sometimes, a persons politics, warrants a personal attack. sometimes it exhibits their unwillingness to think critically, and that is a personal flaw.

i dont believe that every viewpoint is worthy of respect. somehow, i get the feeling that you dont either. but maybe im just projecting.

what does "the more the two become entwined" mean? the more what two become entwined?

The more someone interperets thier Political Identity as thier Personal Identity and vice versa.

To me, this seems to be a trait common to both self-proclaimed Class Warriors and Fundimentalists.

dont believe that every viewpoint is worthy of respect. somehow, i get the feeling that you dont either. but maybe im just projecting.

That is a tricky one. I would say that whether or not I consider an idea to be worthy of respect has no real bearing on the sincerity or worth of the person espousing it. There are plenty of people who I respect, and who's company I enjoy, who if worse came to worse I would force me to face them from the opposite side of the barricade due to our politics.

Some people can make the distinction and others can not.

I love Slavoj Zizek.

Here is a video of him talking about toilets that is somewhat relevant to the topic at hand:

He also speaks of different pubic hair cut styles.

i'd heard the first part before, not the part on pubic hair

but i also want to add: i dont know if thats only the case in vienna....

I'm pretty sure this is filmed in Cold War Yugoslavia, hearing stories of Viennan pubic hair was probably quite liberating. It's worth remembering that at this time Vienna is a major conduit for intellectual discussion to pass from East to West (ie he's talking about what his audience would consider a prime example of a major cosmopolitan Western city, not just RandomPlace, Somewhere).

My observations had nothing to do with living in houses and using electricity. I compared the developmental level of East Germany with that of West Germany. East Germany lagged about as far behind as did the US. There some areas of exception that fascinated me such as the continued use of steam locomotives and the use of manual labor in some jobs that have been mechanized in the US. The quality of public housing appeared to be roughly the same, except that the East German tenements appeared to be a bit better maintained.

You should know better than most that technical developement does not a civilization make.

As stated above, there's a reason the Berlin wall was built, and to ignore the vast social inequities and violence inherent in the Soviet system shows either blindness or stupidity on your part.

There were a variety of reasons for the construction of the Berlin Wall, some of which I am sure you have not considered. The social inequities and violence in the Soviet system is reflected in my original observations on the fraudulent nature of Communism as a proponent of human progress. What you seem to have missed is the damage done to America by rabid anti-communism.

There were a variety of reasons for the construction of the Berlin Wall, some of which I am sure you have not considered.

Be all means enlighten me, but i suspect that the primary reason was to keep people from crossing it.

The social inequities and violence in the Soviet system is reflected in my original observations on the fraudulent nature of Communism as a proponent of human progress. What you seem to have missed is the damage done to America by rabid anti-communism.

And what specifically would that damage be?

WRT the Wall, I don't suppose you know anything about running agents.

WRT damage done by anti-communism: There is damage to the reputation of the government by deception of allies. There is damage to the social fabric by marginalizing intellectuals and favoring criminal elements. There is economic damage resulting from operating secret wars.

I don't suppose you know anything about running agents.

A little, but those with resources will be able to cross regardless. The real purpose of such an edifice is to discourage the rank-and-file which of course raises the question of "If the soviet states are in fact a workerer's paradise why are so many people so eager to leave?"

There is damage to the reputation of the government by deception of allies. There is damage to the social fabric by marginalizing intellectuals and favoring criminal elements. There is economic damage resulting from operating secret wars.

The wars and reputation I will concede, but you assume that the marginalization was un justified which I would argue to the contrary.

Rendering unto Caesar: Liberal anti-Communism and rabid anti-communism

In all seriousness.

not pure enough?

Re: not pure enough?

Re: not pure enough?

Re: not pure enough?

Re: not pure enough?

Re: not pure enough?

Poop.

Re: Poop.

Re: Poop.

Re: Poop.

Re: In all seriousness.

Re: In all seriousness.

Re: In all seriousness.

Re: In all seriousness.

Re: In all seriousness.

Re: In all seriousness.